Palestine Action: why the High Court ruled against the government, and what it means for the future of protest
The High Court has ruled that the UK government’s proscription of the group Palestine Action was unlawful. This is a welcome decision for advocates of free speech and the right to protest, but it is not the end of this story.
Organisations can be proscribed (banned) if the home secretary believes they are “concerned in terrorism” under the definition in the Terrorism Act 2000. But the home secretary’s power to do this has restrictions – chiefly, that such a ban must be “proportionate”.
The court decided Yvette Cooper, home secretary when the ban was introduced, was inconsistent with her own policy on this front, including by unlawfully considering that proscribing the group would offer “significant disruptive benefits” to the police.
The court also found that the proscription unlawfully interfered with the right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. A decision to proscribe is subject to human rights law. The home secretary cannot make a decision that disproportionately restricts the free speech rights of the group or, critically, others who might incidentally get caught up in the ban.
Journalists, academics and other campaigning groups presented evidence they felt “chilled”, deciding not to act or to speak when it would have been perfectly lawful to do so.
Furthermore, the court found Palestine Action’s activities had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence that would justify proscription, and the extra criminal law measures that follow. Proscribing a group makes it a crime publicly to show support for that group. Thousands of people were arrested following the proscription – most for holding placards saying “I support Palestine Action”.
How we got here
Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action in June last year, following the group taking direct disruptive action aimed at halting arms exports to Israel. The proscription came into force on July 5 2025 in secondary legislation passed by Parliament.
Palestine Action has focused its activity on Elbit Systems – what it termed “corporate enablers of the Israeli military-industrial complex”. But it was their break-in at RAF Brize Norton and spraypainting of two Voyager planes that prompted Cooper to act.
Read more: Palestine Action: what it means to proscribe a group, and what the effects could be
Cooper argued Palestine Action had “orchestrated a nationwide campaign of direct criminal action against businesses and institutions, including key national infrastructure and defence”, with methods becoming more aggressive and its members demonstrating a willingness to use violence.
This was the first time the power to proscribe had been used against a domestic protest group that had been involved in non-violent direct action – actions aimed at causing serious damage to (certain) property – and whose use of occasional violence was not a strategy or tool.
In the words of the defence counsel for six Palestine Action members activists accused of aggravated burglary at a 2024 break-in, their use of violence in that case was “clearly unplanned”, a panicked response to being confronted unexpectedly by security guards. The accused were cleared of aggravated burglary, but now face a retrial over alleged criminal damage and violence.
What next for protest rights?
Despite the court’s ruling, the ban remains in place for now, with Palestine Action remaining on the proscription list. The Met has announced they would monitor potential offences related to support for Palestine Action, and gather evidence rather than arrest.
The current home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, announced her immediate intention to appeal the ruling. At a further hearing later this month, her lawyers will have to persuade the court not to quash the proscription order – as it has indicated it is minded to – but instead to suspend it pending the outcome of that appeal. The future of the criminal cases against the thousands arrested is uncertain and messy.
This is an important ruling with implications for the future of protest rights in the UK, which have been eroded in recent years. It stands in stark contrast to the recent slew of measures designed to quell political discontent, such as the last Conservative government’s sentencing and public order laws. These have been followed by various planned extensions under the current Labour government’s crime and policing bill.
No one would sensibly suggest the state should not be using its enormous weight to keep its citizens safe, alive and well. But there remain legitimate questions about the scope of its coercive power to defend national security further upfield – several steps away from the obvious and horrific harms of loss of life or limb.
Allowing a government minister to place a group outside the protection of the ordinary criminal law by categorising them as “terrorists”, bringing greatly increased detention times and reverse burdens of proof, is a momentous step for any democracy to permit.
The clear thrust of the court decision is that the state should have dealt with Palestine Action through the ordinary criminal law: charges for criminal damage, entering a prohibited place or assault. Only if there were a significant ramping up – in scale, impact and frequency – might the home secretary start to wonder about proscribing.
If that stands true for Palestine Action, it must do so even more for Extinction Rebellion, Just Stop Oil, anti-abortion protesters and anti-fracking groups. This judgment remains, for now, a welcome reclaiming of the civic space where contentious politics does, and sometimes must, play out.
The decision has prompted some to claim that ministers should be able to ban groups dedicated to criminal sabotage, without having to label them as terrorists. Such a proposal fails to explain why the ordinary criminal law is not up to the task, and ignores likely overreach.
The price of human rights in a democracy is not simply eternal vigilance, nor even “eternal dirt”, as George Orwell added. It is eternal mutual solidarity lest there be “no one left to speak out for me”.
David Mead is affiliated with the Labour Party, UCU and Netpol Lawyers' Group. He gave evidence on behalf of Palestine Action in its JR, testifying to the impact on academic freedom - research and teaching - and drew on his own research on the history of UK direct action protests